How many judgments cite CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd.?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. (283 ITR 295), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(34), Section 115JB, Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 1962.

CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd.

283 ITR 295High Court2006#6039 most cited

What is CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. authority for?

Retention money is considered deferred payment and is not taxable in the year it is retained if it is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the contract work and the assessee has no vested right to receive it.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers · retention money · accrued income · percentage completion method · deferred payment · contingent income · right to receive · contract revenue · section 145 · section 115JB

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 115JB Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 1962 Section 240 Section 264

Issues it is cited on

retention money right to receive percentage completion method section 10(34)liable to tax section 145 section 115jb section 43 section 14a section 115 previous year section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd.

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Taxman 143 in support of the alternative submission that in the subsequent year the amount had been offered for taxation… • The Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Anup Engineering Ltd vs. CIT 247 ITR 457. • Cases of CIT vs. Ignifluid Boilers (l) Ltd 283 ITR 295 (Mad), CIT vs. Associated Cables (P) Ltd 286 ITR 596 (Bom), DIT(IT) vs. Ballast Nedam International 215 Taxman 254 (Guj), and Amarshiv Construction (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT 367 ITR 659 (Guj), in the context of treatment of retention money withheld by the contractee. 15.10 On behalf of the Revenue, before the Madras High Court, it was argued that the…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 5550/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. CIT, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. CIT, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth : Shri S Srinivasu Revenue by Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement :…

Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 4792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…High Court in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (supra); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Ltd. (supra); Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ld. (supra) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad). We hold that in the factual circumstances especially as per the terms of contract between the assessee and the contractee, the retention money retained by the contractee is deferred payment and is contingent upon satisfactory completion of contract work. We hold that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obliga…

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Hospet

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

M/S. Ksa Powerinfra Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 4 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.550/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ksa Powerinfra Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 480, First Floor, Khivraj Income Tax Complex-1, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaccg9905B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Miss. Amirtha, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 21.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.01.2018 Admitting An Income Of ₹.5,95,78,320/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”

For Appellant: Miss. Amirtha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…by the contractor/ taxpayer. In fact, in a host of judicia1 rulings, retention money was held to be not taxable in absence of satisfaction of related performance conditions despite the same being recognised in books of accounts (CIT v. Ignified Boilers (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad), CIT v P&C Constructions (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 113 (Mad), CIT vs. India Fruits Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 586 (AP), ACIT vs. B.G.R. Energy Systems Ltd. (2014) 47 taxmann.com 266 Hyd Trib), KEC international Limited vs. ITO (ITA No. 2939/Bom/85), ADIT v. Ballast Nedam Dredging (154 TTJ (Mumbai) 280), Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT(2014)…

Bsr Infratech India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…contract was completed, were to be treated as income only when the moneys were actually received, even though the assessee was following a mercantile system of accounting". High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income Tax (iii) vs Ignified Boilers (I) Ltd. (283 ITR 295) (Mad) held that "The assessee was entitled to receive the amount only after successful completion of work. In such circumstances, it could not BSR Infratech India Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 38 be said that 10 per cent, retention money retained by the principal contractor accrued to the assessee during the relevant-assessment year for considerat…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata vs. Emc Ltd

ITAT/26/2022HC Calcutta25 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 194CSection 260A

…Court in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (supra); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Ltd. (supra) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ltd. (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad.) We hold that in the factual circumstances especially as per the terms of contract between the assessee and the contractee, the retention money retained by the contractee is deferred payment and is contingent upon satisfactory completion of contract work. We hold that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obliga…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emc Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2149/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…e obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained. The other judgment relied upon is in the case of CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers-(I). Ltd. reported in [2006] 283 ITR 295 (Mad.). In that judgment also, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the amount retained does not accrue to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee would not be liable. In view of what is stated above, there is no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed". 13 I.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2018 & 2149/Kol/2017 M/s. EMC. Lt…

K Poongavanam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3172/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3172/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs The Acit, Shri K. Poongavanam, No.5, Arasamara St, Circle – 1, Somavarakula, Chengam Road, Vellore. 5Th Street, Tiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Akgpp0094H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)

…d that the case may be remitted back and relied on certain case laws viz., (i) CIT vs. P&C Constructions (P) Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 113 (Mad) (ii) CIT v. East Coast Constructions and Ind. Ltd (2006) 283 ITR 297 (Mad) (iii) CIT vs. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad) 5. We heard the rival submissions. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has not made any attempt to produce any document / voucher / primary material either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A) or before this Tribunal in support of its contention. When there are no documents placed before us to create even a doubt…

DCIT- 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3427/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit-14(1)(2) Vs. M/S Commtel Networks Room No.470, 4Th Floor Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 23, White Castle, 34-35 Mumbai-400 020 Union Park, Chembur Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc8966G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 211

…(Bom). 22. Furthermore, in addition to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables Ltd., (supra), Gujarat High Court in case of Amarshiv Construction (P) Ltd., 45 Taxmann.com 429 and Madras High Court in case of Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd., 283 ITR 295 and also in the case of East Coast Constructions Ind. Ltd., 160 Taxmann 399 held that retention money accrues only when the performance period has been successfully completed and the Bank guarantees have been released. We categorically observe that the facts of the assessee’s case is identical to that of the case of the Associated Cables Ltd. Ass…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 909/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy Cit- 14(1)(2), M/S. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 23, White Castle, Vs. 34-35, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan Aaacc8966G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 143(3)

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…nder the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained. The other judgement relied upon is in the case of CIT vs. Ignified Boilers (I) Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 458 : (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad). In that judgement also, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the amount retained does not accrue to the assessee and therefore, the assessee would not be liable. 23. In view of what is stated above, there is no reason to entertain the appeal. Appeal is dismissed." ' (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid appeal arose from the…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tantia Construction Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1405/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tantia Construction Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 0811 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.T iwari, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

…10,60,18,958/- was retained from contract receipt of the current year.” 3.2. The assessee placed reliance on the following decisions of various High Courts including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court :- a) CIT vs Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd reported in 283 ITR 295 (Mad) b) CIT vs P & C Constructions (P) Ltd reported in 2 taxmann.com 47 (Mad) c) CIT vs Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Pvt Ltd reported in 179 ITR 8 (Cal) 3.3. The assessee explained that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the company while filing return u/s 139(1) in its computation did not include the sum of money retained in its business profit…

M/S. Avrora (India) Marine Systems Pvt.Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO., Cir.-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3459/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Years: 2007-08 M/S. Avrora (India) Marine The Income Tax Officer, Circle Systems Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(4) 1201/1202, Great Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Summit, ‘B’Wing, Plot No.66, Maharshi Karve Marg, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Churchgate, Mumbai 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadca1502D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: , Shri M. N. Nandgaonkar A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R

…under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained. The other judgment relied upon is in the case of CIT Vs. Ignified Boilers (I) Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 458 : (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad.). In that judgment also, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the amount retained does not accrue to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee would not be liable” Respectfully following the above judgment, we allow this ground of the assessee’s appeal. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 5 A.Y.2007-08 7. During the course of assessm…

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to tax as and when the same accrues to the company. The assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of East Coast Construction and Industries Ltd reported in 283 ITR 297 (Mad) ; Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd reported in 283 ITR 295 (Mad) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd reported in 179 ITR 8 (Cal). The ld AO showcaused the assessee to bring to tax the said retention money in the year under consideration. The assessee replied that it is mainly engaged in manufacturing and supply of heavy equipment and tools under contract and reiterat…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Capital Care India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Ahuja, C.A

Section 142(1)

…o receive the same accrues only after successful completion of the work and hence, it is taxable only when, it has accrued or is received by the assessee as held in CIT Vs. P&C Construction (P) Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 113, CIT Vs. Ignifluid Borders (I) Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad) & CIT Vs. East Coast Constructions & Ind. Ltd (2006) 283 ITR 297 (Mad). 5.1.10 As is seen in Accounting Standard 9 of ICAL which lays down that when uncertainties exist regarding determination of the amount or its collectability, the revenue should not be treated as accrued and hence shall not be recognized until collection. 5.1.11 Theref…

D.C.I.T CC - Xiii, Kolkata. vs. M/S Tantia Constraction Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 69/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee chose to offer the same on receipt basis (i.e. retention money offered in the year of receipt) by placing reliance on the following decisions :- CIT vs Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd reported in (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad) CIT vs P & C Constructions (P) Ltd reported in (2009) 2 taxmann.com 47 (Mad) CIT vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt Ltd reported in (1989) 179 ITR 8 (Cal) 3.3. The assessee tried to explain that since section 153A of the Act authorizes the ld AO to assess or reassess the total income in respect of each asst year falling within such six…